Issues in Education and
Globalisation in
Southeast Asia:
“Contending mindsets
in MDGs and GATS”
Raquel D. Castillo
National Coordinator
E-Net Philippines
25 October 2005
Education has been considered as
one of the most important
contributors to the achievement of
MDGs to halve extreme poverty by
2015
Education for All (EFA)
Universal Primary Education (UPE)
Vs
Universal free compulsory basic
education
The performance of South
East Asia on educational
outcomes has been varied
Education Devt Index (EDI) for a country
is the arithmetical mean of the values
of the indicators selected to measure
the four EFA goals:
gender parity
universal primary education
quality of education, and
adult literacy
Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and
Vietnam are in the intermediate
position with an EDI score of 0.8-0.94
Cambodia and Lao (PDR) with a score
of less than 0.8 are unlikely to achieve
the EFA goals by 2015
Total Debt Service and Education & Health Expenditure as % of
GDP (2001/2002)
18
16
14
12
10
Total Debt Service
8
Education & Health
6
4
2
0
Cambodia
Indonesia
Lao PDR
Malaysia
Philippines
Thailand
Post the ratification of the EFA and
MDG goals in the year 2000,
ironically bilateral aid to
education($16 B promised by
2006) has in fact experienced a
downward trend from an average
of 4.5 percent in the 1990s to only
4.2 percent in the first three years
of the new millennium (GMR 2005)
Contending principles
1. Education is a basic human right. The
State is duty-bound to provide it as a
public good.
2. Market is more efficient than
government in providing goods and
pushes for formation of international
market in public service delivery.
Political tension between
MDGs and GATs
MDGs – place expansion and
improvement of basic public services
such as education at the heart of
international development policy
GATS – expands corporate access
through privately-owned, privatelyfinanced, privately-delivered services
It has been argued that GATS is
beneficial as services liberalization
helps developing countries by
increasing efficiency and providing
required inputs.
Trends in so-called public
service reform according
to WB (NPM)
Separation of policy making from
service delivery responsibility
Increased ‘public-private partnerships’
Decentralisation
Contract-based accountability
Users as consumers
1. Direct impact of GATS on
policy: Standard prescription of
‘privatisation of education’
Cost recovery through user fees,
(Aka community financing)
Greater private sector participation
in education
Decentralization of education (Phils
RA 9155)
Abolishment of subsidies for
tertiary education
Private enrollment as a
percentage of total (GMR 2005)
Preschool
Primary
Secondary
Cambodia
27.4
0.9
0.4
Indonesia
98.8
16.0
42.7
Malaysia
41.1
3.8
6.6
Philippines
46.0
7.1
21.5
Thailand
20.2
13.6
6.4
The faces of privatization
in the Philippines
1. Service
providers for Non-Formal
Education
2. Preschool contracting mechanisms
3. GASTPE
4. Increased ‘user fees’ for state colleges
and universities
Impetus for GASTPE LAW
Exodus from private to public high
school
Perennial financing constraints
Growth of Education
Services Contracting
(ESC)
YEAR
NO. OF
RECIPIENTS
1986/87
4,322
NO. OF
PARTICIP.
SCHOOLS
158
2003/04
280,216
1,517
Some hard questions…
Will performance indicators be better?
What values?
Will they go to under-served areas?
What impact on teachers’ welfare?
Will it really cost less, given need to
monitor standards?
2. Indirect Impact of WTO on
school push-offs (dropouts)
In Atok, Benguet, Philippines, vegetablegrowing communities have become
poorer because of plunging farm
prices. As a consequence, child
workers and OSC and OSY numbers
are significantly high.
Learner outcomes…
1000 Grade 1 entrants
439 will
finish in 6 yrs
312
drop
249 will finish
in 9.6 yrs
Only 7 will have 75% scores in
Science, Math, English
How many are they
nationwide? 11.2 M
Number of
among 7-24 years old, 1989-2004
Out-of-School-Youth
12
in Million
10
8
6
4
2
0
1989
1994
1999
2004
More hard questions:
Would governments come under
pressure to change the conditions
under which public services are
provided with GATS?
Article I of GATS:
The definition of ‘services’ covered in the
agreement gives an exception to ‘services
supplied in the exercise of governmental
authority.
BUT…
Government services provided on a commercial
basis are subject to GATS provisions, as are
government services supplied in competition
with any other suppliers.
Once the public service is privatized, it
ceases to be an exempted government
service. Even in a case where
privatization is partial, or where the
government still maintains its service
but allows private entities to also
participate in supplying that service, in
terms of Article I.3(c) of GATS, such a
service may no longer qualify as a
service ‘supplied in the exercise of
governmental authority’ and thus could
be brought under GATS. (Martin Khor)
The way to go…
1. Developing countries can choose to
liberalize selectively and autonomously,
without making binding commitments at
the WTO; thus, if the liberalization turns
out to have negative effects, they can
reverse course without having to pay
any compensation. National policymaking sovereignty can be upheld.
2. Designing ‘good governance’ should
embed defined roles for private and
NGO delivery while strengthening and
not undermining public institutions.
3. Education is a basic right,
not a commodity!
Thank you!